A Leftist Hero… or Monster | Alfred Kinsey

Two links worth clicking on… one is my main PEDOPHILIA post and the other is from THE FEDERALIST, here is a short clip:

The left always plays the long game, and this one is no exception. Acceptance of pedophilia can be traced to the monstrous Dr. Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist by training who branched out into the study of human sexuality supposedly in response to student questions about sex and marriage.

Actually, though, as his subsequent work proved, Kinsey had a special interest in perversion. His groundbreaking “research” on sexual behavior included extensive observation of infant responses to sexual stimuli. If not a pedophile himself (views differ), he collaborated for years with at least one pedophile who meticulously cataloged his abuse of hundreds of children from 1917 to 1948 — the infamous “children of Table 34.”

The Phil Donahue Show (12-5-1990) The entire appearance can be watched here. Dr. Judith Reisman’s entire chapter on the children experimented on can be read here (PDF). This post is to augment/add-to this post titled: “The Left’s Fanaticism and Hypocrisy ~ Children Suffer”.

After this long quote, I will post my two uploads to two [dated] full length documentaries, detailing the perverted aspect of what the Left defends.

But first, a quote from one of my favorite authors. This is a large excerpt from one of my favorite authors… his books are nothing but packed full of facts and references to chase down – always fun for me.

  • Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group, 2004), 33, 34-35, 36-39, 40, 41-42, 45-49.


[p.33>] WHAT MOTIVATES SOCIAL REVOLUTIONARIES? DO THEY SELFLESSLY long for an elevation of society onto a higher plane, or is it their selfish design to bring the world down to their own degraded level?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was incapable of holding a job and sponged off women his entire life. He spawned five children, not one of whom he bothered to name, all of whom he abandoned to almost certain death at an asylum. He was a sexual pervert and enjoyed physical punishment and exposing himself to women.1 Should it surprise us, then, that he advocated a philosophy of sexual anarchy, state ownership of children, and the subsidization of those unwilling to work?

British writer Paul Johnson reminds us that so far as we know, “Marx never set foot in a mill, factory, mine, or other industrial workplace in the whole of his life.”2 His war against free enterprise stemmed not from solidarity with the workers but from his constant debts, unemployment, and inability to support his family. His mother complained, “Karl should accumulate capital instead of just writing about it.”3


[p.34>] Halfway through the twentieth century, Indiana University professor Alfred Kinsey launched what was perhaps the first salvo in the Sexual Revolution. The Kinsey Reports hit postwar America like a sucker punch. Claiming that more people than America was willing to admit engaged in premarital sex, homosexuality, adultery, and various other frowned-upon pursuits, 1948’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and 1953’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Female revolutionized American law, culture, education, and a host of other areas. Critics of the best-sellers, the media informed America, were to Kinsey what the Church was to Galileo. Kinsey, after all, was a “scientist.”


Partisans and detractors agree that Kinsey changed the world. While time obscures his name, Kinsey’s spirit looms large in a world much more indulgent of unsettling sexual behavior:

  • A March 2000 state-funded conference in Massachusetts instructed high school students how to engage in a sexual practice called “fisting” and dispensed bandages for “when the sex got really rough.”4
  • Videos aired by MTV after school, by performers like Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears, increasingly resemble soft-core porn on late-night pay television.
  • [p.35>] In 2003, Rolling Stone explored the homosexual subculture of “bug chasers” and “gift givers.” The labels refer to gays who actively seek HIV, and the men who grant their wish. One bug chaser, who ironically volunteered as an AIDS educator, explained, “I think it turns the other guy on to know that I’m still negative and that they’re bringing me into their brotherhood. That gets me off, too.” The moment he is infected, he confessed, will be “the most erotic thing I can imagine.”5 The piece seems to have exaggerated the popularity of such pursuits, but this sensationalism didn’t negate the fact that something this sick actually occurs.
  • Some institutions have begun constructing third bathrooms for transgender people. The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, for instance, doled out $8,000 to build a bathroom for a single employee.6
  • A Florida group hosts a nudist camp for children, featuring such activities as a naked talent show and eating s’mores nude around a campfire.7
  • After tying up and gagging a blindfolded classmate, a San Francisco Art Institute student performed a class project with him in front of students, two professors, and security. This is how the “artist” described the outdoor event: “I engaged in oral sex with him and he engaged in oral sex with me. I had given him an enema, and I had taken a shit and stuffed it in his ass. That goes on, he shits all over me, I shit in him.”8

Post-Kinseyan America is very different from pre-Kinseyan America. The Indiana University professor set into motion radical societal changes. No less a sexual revolutionary than Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, has labeled himself “Kinsey’s pamphleteer.”9 Though it is too simplistic to pin the blame or credit for any social trend on one person, Alfred Kinsey has had extraordinary influence.


[p.36>] A “SECOND DARWIN”?

Born in Hoboken, New Jersey, to middle-class parents on June 23, 1894, Alfred Charles Kinsey was the first of three children. From the age of ten onward, Kinsey grew up in the more suburban South Orange, where, biographer James Jones notes, “he did not make a single close friend.”10 As peers played, Kinsey spent most of his early years indoors as a result of a heart condition and bouts with rickets, measles, typhoid, chicken pox, and rheumatic fever. His bookish nature denied him opportunities to develop normal relationships. He was the only boy in his high school class not to play at least one varsity sport.

Kinsey excelled in academics, however. His high school yearbook’s “class prophecy” predicted that Kinsey, the class valedictorian, would become the “second Darwin.”11 At elite Bowdoin College, he was one of two students to graduate magna cum laude. Kinsey went on to do graduate work in biology at Harvard, where he came under the sway of Dean William Morton Wheeler. “Thanks to Wheeler’s influence,” Jones observes, “Kinsey left Boston believing that biologists should become social engineers, shaping public policy and altering private attitudes on a variety of issues, ranging from eugenics, to private morality.”12

Yet Kinsey’s metamorphosis had come long before he had set foot on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus. From an early age, the superficially austere Kinsey had begun to engage in a variety of bizarre activities. “For a boy like Kinsey, a righteous boy whose sense of self-worth depended upon rigid self-control, nothing needed to be kept more hidden than the fact that he masturbated and that he did so with a foreign object inserted up his penis,” Jones writes. “By late adolescence, his masochism was well advanced. He had progressed beyond straws and was inserting a brush back up his penis, a practice he would continue for life, at times changing the instrument of self-torture, but never the point of attack.”13 Rather than control his destructive behavior, Kinsey projected his perversions upon society through “science.”

[p.37>] Kinsey picked up another peculiar habit in these years. After earning honors as one of America’s first Eagle Scouts, Kinsey devoted an unnatural amount of time to mentoring boys. He taught Sunday school, served as a counselor for the YMCA and the Boy Scouts, and helped start organizations for boys where none existed. At Bowdoin he involved himself in the Brunswick Boys Association.14 At Harvard he helped found a boys’ club at his Methodist church.15 Even as a professor at Indiana University, he left his wife of three years to spend the summer as a camp counselor for boys.16 In total, Kinsey would devote more than ten summers to working at boys’ camps.17 Kinsey compensated for his unrealized boyhood by partaking in male adolescent pursuits well into adulthood.

He quickly accepted a teaching position at Indiana University in 1920 after completing graduate work at Harvard. The new professor of zoology began dating a student, Clara McMillen. After a two-month courtship, he proposed, and six months later they married. At their wedding there was no best man, nor did Kinsey have any family in attendance.18 The academic’s voracious sexual appetites were not so wide as to include much of a taste for women, leaving the marriage unconsummated for months.19

Kinsey’s early years as a professor were marked by his authorship of several lucrative textbooks and by long field trips in remote parts of the country searching for gall wasps. On these trips he would bring along male assistants, who would be startled by Kinsey’s work attire of various stages of undress, as well as his regimented demand for continual bathing by them. “For Kinsey not only ordered his students to bathe; he routinely checked while they were showering, ostensibly to make certain they were complying with his orders,” Jones notes. If this were not strange enough, Kinsey insisted on showering with his students. One befuddled student was left to confess to his diary, “Such a mania for baths I’ve never seen.”20

In the classroom, Jones says, “Kinsey made no effort to conceal his desire to politicize young people.”21 But Kinsey’s primary interest was not the classroom. It was sex. In July 1938 Kinsey collected his first sexual history. He collected thousands more over the next few years, oblivious to the war that had engulfed the world around him. In 1945 he quit teaching entirely to focus exclusively on his research. He released his first report within three years and became one of the most recognizable names on the planet.


The Kinsey that has been passed on by college texts and popular histories is that of the disinterested scientist whose research is unimpeachable. In David Halberstam’s The Fifties, Kinsey is “prudish,” “old fashioned,” and “the very embodiment of Middle American square.”22 Rutgers University professor William O’Neill praises Kinsey in American High as a “hero of science”; those who pressured the Rockefeller Foundation to cut Kinsey’s funding won “a victory for small mindedness.”23 Paul Johnson’s History of the American People affirms Kinsey’s statistics and explains that his “findings . . . confirmed much other evidence that, even in the 1950s, the Norman Rockwell images no longer told the full story.”24 William Manchester’s Kinsey in The Glory and the Dream is “an objective investigator,” “a stickler for explicit detail,” and a “disciple of truth.” “As a scientist,” Manchester informs readers, “he had naturally played no favorites.”25

But Kinsey, as we know now, was a very different kind of “scientist.” He was a homosexual, a wife-swapper, a sadomasochist, and, some suspect, a pedophile—much more involved in his work than the keepers of the tablets would have us believe.

The real Kinsey lent his wife to other men. His attic served as a personal pornographic movie studio. His fellow researchers, Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin, also acted as his sex partners. One Kinsey researcher bragged about having bedded a dog. Others were committed sadomasochists. The common denominator among the staff at the Institute for Sex Research was a pursuit of sex that was outside of societal conventions.

In large part because of their zeal for abnormal sex, the Kinsey team focused their research on people who deviated from community standards—pimps, prostitutes, homosexuals, and imprisoned sex offenders. Kinsey’s “methodology and sampling technique virtually guaranteed that he would find what he was looking for,” writes Jones.26

Kinsey’s perversion was often self-destructive. For most of his life, he masturbated with a toothbrush inserted in his urethra. At one point, Kinsey crawled into a bathtub, pulled out his pocketknife, and, says Jones, “circumcised himself without benefit of anesthesia.”27 He engaged in auto-asphyxiation while masturbating and pierced his genitals to such an extent that by the end, biographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy reveals, there was “nothing left to pierce.”28 Jones describes perhaps the most dis [p.39>] -turbing occurrence, from Kinsey’s final years: “[H]e tied a strong, tight knot around his scrotum with one end of the rope dangling from the pipe overhead. The other end he wrapped around his hand. Then, he climbed up on a chair and jumped off, suspending himself in midair.”29 This particular self-inflicted torture hospitalized Kinsey for weeks and was part of a pattern of behavior that, ironically, had caused impotence for this champion of “sexual freedom.”30

Kinsey’s need for control manifested itself in demands to know the sexual histories of his workers and their families. He regulated the sexual behavior of those on his staff and demanded access to them and, occasionally, their wives. The pressure, recalled one wife, was “sickening.” She “felt like my husband’s career at the Institute depended on it.”31 So great was his dominance that Pomeroy and Martin felt compelled to ask his permission to engage in extramarital affairs. Another Kinsey researcher, Paul Gebhard, was once ordered to cease an affair by his apologetic boss, who normally preferred to order his underlings to have sex, not to stop having it.32 Kinsey’s work environment was more Spahn Ranch than Menlo Park.

Kinsey used a bizarre litmus test for prospective employees and almost without fail hired those with sexual histories falling well outside the mainstream. When one employee, Vincent Nowlis, showed squeamishness toward a sexual case history, Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin cornered him in a hotel room. Jones writes, “As near as Nowlis could tell, his boss was offering to provide ‘seductive instruction’ that would involve ‘learning plus pleasure.’” Nowlis explained that his boss’s advances “obviously would involve some kind of sexual activity on my part.” But, he said, “I didn’t see my wife or any desirable partners, shall we say, around, and I wasn’t interested.” The sexual harassment persuaded Nowlis to announce his resignation the following day.33

Jones describes the Indiana University professor as a “secular evangelist,” “a scolding preacher rather than a disinterested scientist,” and a “covert revolutionary” who “used science to lay siege to middle class morality.”34 Kinsey, explains Jones, engaged in “a public crusade for private reasons.”35 At every turn these “private reasons”—perversion and a need to dominate others—permeated his “scientific” work.



[p.42>] This was at a time when he had collected 590 histories, meaning that histories from individuals he knew to be gay constituted about 20 percent of his total sample group.50 There is no specific record of the number of homosexual histories after this point, but we do know that Kinsey continued to track down gay men to interview. Kinsey actively sought out homosexuals by developing key contacts in the urban gay subcultures of Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and other cities. In New York, for instance, Kinsey stayed at the Astor in Times Square because its street-level bar was a hangout for gays seeking anonymous sex.51 Within the pages of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey candidly admits that “several hundred male prostitutes contributed their histories” to the survey.52

Seeking out homosexuals not only weighted Kinsey’s study toward his predrawn conclusions but provided him sexual liaisons as well. Kinsey was anything but the detached researcher. At times he had sex with subjects he was supposed to be interviewing. For one interview in 1946, Kinsey invited a Dr. Earle Marsh to his hotel room. Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy writes, “While they chatted, Marsh suddenly told him he’d had a fantasy of having sex with him. ‘[I told him] with no idea in mind except to report it.’” Kinsey then turned to Marsh and decreed, “Take off your clothes.” They had sex and would do so every subsequent time they met.53 On some occasions the professor would surreptitiously view others engaging in intercourse.54

Preselecting homosexuals was only part of the equation to bias the results. Kinsey also stacked the sample group with prison inmates. In 1941, for instance, Kinsey visited forty penal farms—more than three times the amount of campuses where he collected histories (an early complaint was that Kinsey focused his interviews too much on students).55 A Kinsey staff member claimed years later that 44 percent of the inmates Kinsey interviewed had had homosexual experiences, while the authors [p.42>] themselves placed the figure in a higher range.56 Whatever the real number, one need not be a sexologist to know that prisons are a breeding ground for homosexual activity and that prisoners normally have rebelled against societal norms not just in their criminal activities. Yet padding the sample group with inmates was not enough. The researchers pursued a particular type of inmate, the sex offender, to skew the survey’s results further. This still was insufficient, as a particular type of sex offender, the most perverse and abnormal, became the focus of interviews. All three of Kinsey’s coauthors have since admitted that their prison histories ignored scientific sampling techniques and focused on the most perverse sex offenders, including those who had practiced incest, rape, and pedophilia. Paul Gebhard—a coauthor of the Female volume, an institute staff member at the time of the Male volume’s release, and later a director of the institute—candidly states that the focus on sexual deviants was quite deliberate: “At the Indiana State Farm we had no plan of sampling—we simply sought out sex offenders and, after a time, avoided the more common types of offense (e.g., statutory rape) and directed our efforts toward the rarer types.”57 Male volume coauthor Wardell Pomeroy concurs: “We went to the [prison] records and got lists of the inmates who were in for various kinds of sex offenses. If the list was short for some offenses—as in incest, for example—we took the history of everybody on it. If it was a long list, as for statutory rape, we might take the history of every fifth or tenth man.”58 A third coauthor, Kinsey’s gardener-turned-colleague Clyde Martin, notes that the institute team sought out sex offenders serving time for “contributing to the delinquency” of minors.59

While it is clear that the institute staff took thousands of inmate histories, it is not known how many made it into the data used for Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Credible estimates based on remarks by Kinsey and others place the total amount used at around 20 percent to 25 percent.60 Until the institute opens up its files for scholarly examination—provided that the records exist, as they claim—the number of prisoners surveyed can only be estimated.



[p.45>] In 1981, Judith Reisman addressed the Fifth World Congress of Sexology in Jerusalem. Her speech accused one of the most respected academics of the twentieth century of complicity in the rape and abuse of children, and of pawning off fraudulent data as legitimate scholarly material. The subject of her earth-shattering talk was Alfred Kinsey. Of Kinsey’s famous reports, Dr. Reisman announced, “such mercantile pseudo-science even [p.46>] -tually defames the entire scholarly community, and tends to implicate us all as popularizers of whatever ‘truth’ is paying dividends at the moment.”76

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, Kinsey’s team claimed that children were sexual beings essentially from birth, meaning that even infants were capable of orgasm. Until Reisman came along in 1981, it apparently did not occur to anyone to question publicly how Kinsey and his men came to this conclusion.

Kinsey collected data on at least 317 male children and numerous additional female children. Infants as young as five months old, said Kinsey, achieve “orgasm” after being stimulated from “partners.” Symptoms of sexual climax for young children, claimed Kinsey, often included “sobbing,” “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.” He added that often the child “will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax.” From all this he deduced that the child derived “definite pleasure” from the situation.77

For a man who gained joy from hanging himself by his testicles, circumcising himself with a pocketknife, and inserting toothbrushes into his urinary tract, the children’s responses might very well have been interpreted as pleasure. For almost everyone else it is clear that the expressions of these babies were not of delight but of extreme terror.

Kinsey’s charts show how an eleven-year-old was supposedly brought to orgasm nineteen times in one hour and how a two-year-old was brought to orgasm eleven times in sixty-five minutes. One unfortunate four-year-old boy was manipulated to “climax” twenty-six times in a twenty-four-hour period by someone Kinsey labeled a scientifically “trained observer.”78 In Kinsey’s sanitized jargon, Reisman pointed out, these unfortunate kids were no longer children—referred to as such on only one occasion—but “individuals” (five references) and “pre-adolescent” (seven references). Their tormentors were not rapists or molesters, but “partners” or “scientifically trained observers.”79

That Kinsey allowed child molesters to dictate whether these children enjoyed being molested speaks volumes not only about his character but about his interest in real science as well. His methods were something akin to relying on tobacco executives to determine the addictiveness of nicotine, or allowing a rapist to discern whether his victim really “wanted” sex.

Dripping from every page of his work on preadolescent sexuality is the notion that sex between children and adults is natural and healthy. Child [p.47>] -adult sexual contacts, Kinsey writes, “had involved considerable affection, and some of the older females in the sample felt that their pre-adolescent experience had contributed favorably to their later socio-sexual development.”80 At another point, he puts the blame of adult-child sexual contact on kids: “Children, out of curiosity, sometimes initiate the manipulation of male genitalia, even before the male has made any exposure.”81 Are children harmed by such contacts? According to Kinsey, yes and no. He writes:

[S]ome 80 per cent of the children had been emotionally upset or frightened by their contacts with adults. A small portion had been seriously disturbed; but in most instances the reported fright was nearer the level that children will show when they see insects, spiders, or other objects against which they have been adversely conditioned. If a child were not culturally conditioned, it is doubtful if it would be disturbed by sexual approaches of the sort which had usually been involved in these histories.82

Kinsey adds that to the extent that a child is damaged after having sexual contact with an adult, the rapist is not to blame; rather, the child is harmed by the “hysteria” created by police, parents, and others.83

How Kinsey obtained his data on children is a point of contention. Current Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft and past director June Reinisch have attested that the data came from a lone pedophile.84 The authors of the Male report claimed that nine scientifically inclined pedophiles observed preadolescent orgasm.85 Kinsey confidant and colleague Paul Gebhard states that the Indiana University researchers got their data from pedophile organizations, sex offenders, and numerous individuals who had volunteered information.86 Someone isn’t telling the truth, but why?

Was Kinsey himself a pedophile?

It is quite possible that Kinsey—who privately condoned child-adult sexual encounters and acted as a longtime counselor for such groups as the Boy Scouts and the YMCA—was a prime “observer” and source of information. The fact that hundreds of children were molested to generate data is not the evidence. Kinsey also bragged of his large collection of early adolescent sperm. “You can only collect early adolescent ejaculate by being pretty close to the adolescent,” Reisman points out. “Early adolescent sperm is not collected by recall.”87 Although there is no direct proof [p.48>] that Kinsey raped any of these children, it is irresponsible not to raise the question. If it wasn’t Kinsey, then who raped hundreds of children in the name of science?

One child rapist Kinsey relied on for “research” was a Mr. Rex King, who, in addition to bedding his grandmother and most other members of his family, had about eight hundred sexual contacts with children. King continued to molest children and report back to the Institute for Sex Research, with the full knowledge of Kinsey, until 1954, after both volumes had been released. “I congratulate you on the research spirit which has led you to collect data over these many years,” Kinsey admiringly wrote to King. “Everything that you’ve accumulated must find its way into scientific channels.”88

Another child molester who assisted Kinsey was a Nazi party official and former Waffen S.S. officer, Fritz von Balluseck. As the Nazi commandant of the Polish town of Jedrzejow, von Balluseck used his position of power to abuse children sexually. He reportedly told the Jewish children under his watch, “It is either the gas chamber or me.”89 They got both. In 1957 von Balluseck was put on trial for murdering a child and was convicted of molesting scores of others long after the war had ended. The West German press reported von Balluseck’s collaboration with Kinsey. One paper noted that von Balluseck had been “encouraged to continue his research” by Kinsey.90 The presiding judge in von Balluseck’s trial said to the defendant, “I got the impression that you got to the children in order to impress Kinsey and to deliver him material.” Von Balluseck responded, “Kinsey himself asked me for that.”91

Kinsey’s child molesters are beyond the reach of justice. Their victims, however, are for the most part still with us and can be helped if they are found. Unfortunately, Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute remains clouded in secrecy. Concerning “interviews” with small girls, Reisman wonders, “If, as the Kinsey team claimed, a parent was always present during the and ‘Uncle Pomeroy’ and the small girl, and if all of the names of every subject is in secret code in the Institute data base, as they claimed, why are these children not traceable?”92

One victim who has come forward is Esther White.[Esther White is not her real name] As a child in 1940s Ohio, she was repeatedly molested by her father. “It was for years,” [p.49>] she said. “He was not physically abusive, maybe psychologically abusive, [treating me] like a slave.”93 Even among child molesters, Esther’s dad was peculiar. He consulted his watch after he finished raping his daughter. He filled out charts and questionnaires. And he apparently shared the fact that he was forcing sex upon his daughter with members of his family and other acquaintances.94

In the mid-1940s, Esther traveled from her home to Columbus, Ohio. She remembers the trip as “a big deal.” In Columbus she met some scientists. One of them was Alfred Kinsey, she says. “There was a meeting between Alfred Kinsey and myself and two other men from the Kinsey Institute, my father, and my grandfather, and my great-grandmother,” she remembers. “I was a child. I didn’t understand any of it.” Kinsey’s connection to her childhood trauma didn’t dawn on her until the early 1990s. “I basically buried it until I heard Judith [Reisman]. . . . I knew I had met Alfred Kinsey, but it didn’t mean anything. He was introduced to me. My grandfather was very proud of knowing him. My grandfather went to Indiana University.”95 Records confirm that the Kinsey team stopped in Columbus to interview young children during that time period.96

When asked if Kinsey’s research was worth it, considering the cost of obtaining such data, current Kinsey Institute president John Bancroft curtly responded, “Consider the cost of remaining ignorant.”97

To that, White quietly responds, “Remaining ignorant would have meant I would have been a virgin when I married my husband. [Kinsey] took away my virginity by brainwashing my father.”98


  1. Will Durant and Ariel Durant, Rousseau and Revolution (New York: MJF Books, 1967), pp. 6, 8, 18.
  2. Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 60.
  3. Quoted in Johnson, Intellectuals, p. 74.
  4. “Kids Get Graphic Instruction in Homosexual Sex,” www.massnews.com/ past_issues/2005/5_May?maygsa.htm, accessed on October 13, 2003. [New Link: MASS RESISTANCE]
  5. Gregory A. Freeman, “Bug Chasers: The Men Who Long To Be HIV+,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 2003, pp. 45–48.
  6. Laura Brown, “Transsexual Toilet Costs T $8G,” Boston Herald, June 6, 2000, p. 1.
  7. Katie Zernike, “At Nude Youth Camp, Skin Is Bare but Lust Is Verboten,” New York Times, June 18, 2003, p. 18.
  8. Quoted in Matt Smith, “Public Enema No. 2,” SFWeekly.com, February 23, 2000, available at www.sfweekly.com/issues/2000-02-23/feature.html/1/index.html, accessed on October 13, 2003. [New Link: FREE REPUBLIC]
  9. Quoted in Judith Reisman, “Exposing Pornography’s Addictive, Destructive Effects,” Human Events Online, December 16, 2003. Available at id-2618″>www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print-yea&id-2618, accessed on May 1, 2004. [New Link: PDF]
  10. James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p. 33.
  11. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 32.
  12. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, pp. 153–154.
  13. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 82.
  14. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, pp. 117–118.
  15. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 139.
  16. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 264.
  17. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 155.
  18. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 172.
  19. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 174.
  20. Quoted in Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 281.
  21. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 189.
  22. David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York: Villard Books, 1993), pp. 272–281.
  23. William O’Neill, American High (New York: The Free Press, 1986), pp. 45, 47.
  24. Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 840.
  25. William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), pp. 477, 478.
  26. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 533.
  27. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 610.
  28. Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, Sex the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000), pp. 336, 414.
  29. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 739.
  30. Gathorne-Hardy, Sex the Measure of All Things, p. 415.
  31. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 607.
  32. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, pp. 499, 608.
  33. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 491.
  34. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, pp. 335, 532, 602.
  35. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 397.


  1. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, p. 387.
  2. Gathorne-Hardy, Sex the Measure of All Things, p. 239.
  3. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 216.
  4. Gathorne-Hardy, Sex the Measure of All Things, p. 248.
  5. Gathorne-Hardy, Sex the Measure of All Things, p. 307.
  6. Gathorne-Hardy, Sex the Measure of All Things, p. 189.
  7. Reisman and Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 23; A. C. Kinsey, W. B. Pomeroy, C. E. Martin, P. H. Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1953), p. 21.
  8. See Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Arlington, VA: Institute for Media Education, 1998), p. 94; Reisman and Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 22.
  9. Reisman and Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, p. 22.
  10. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, p. 94.
  11. Reisman and Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, pp. 22–24. Passage includes the authors’ estimate that 25 percent of the male sample group Kinsey used for his book were inmates, and Kinsey Institute staffer John Gagnon’s opinion that 900–1,000 of the males used for the survey were prisoners.


  1. Dr. Judith Reisman, “The Scientist as Contributing Agent to Child Sexual Abuse: A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations,” 5th World Congress of Sexology, Jerusalem, Israel, July 23, 1981.
  2. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 161.
  3. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 180.
  4. Reisman, “The Scientist as Contributing Agent to Child Sexual Abuse.”
  5. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 121.
  6. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 120.
  7. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 122.
  8. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, pp. 121–122.
  9. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, pp. 167, 170.
  10. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 177.
  11. Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles, Yorkshire Television, Channel 4 (October 8, 1998), Producer, Tim Tate.
  12. Reisman quote and information on Kinsey’s adolescent sperm collection appear in E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), p. 108.
  13. Kinsey’s Paedophiles, Tim Tate.
  14. Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (Institute for Media Education: Crestwood, Kentucky, 2000), p. 166 (2nd edition).
  15. Quoted in Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (Institute for Media Education: Crestwood, Kentucky, 1998), pp. 165–167.
  16. Quoted in Kinsey’s Paedophiles, Producer, Tim Tate.
  17. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, p. 162.
  18. Phone interview of “Esther White” by author, August 2, 2000.
  19. Information comes from my phone interview of White on August 2, 2000, as well as the documentary Kinsey’s Paedophiles, Producer, Tim Tate.
  20. Phone interview of Esther White by author, August 2, 2000.
  21. Gathorne-Hardy discusses Kinsey’s work with children in Columbus on pp. 208, 215, 227.
  22. Kinsey’s Paedophiles, Producer, Tim Tate.
  23. Phone interview of Esther White by author, August 2, 2000.


Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles (October 8, 1998)

50-minutes long | (Old VHS documentary – played with the audio a ted, sharpened it a bit and decreased the oranges and brightened it… still a small crappy file to use.) This is a Yorkshire Television production for Channel 4, produced and directed by Tim Tate, aired August 10, 1998. The show features interviews with Kinsey team members Paul Gebhard and Clarence Tripp, Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft and several of Kinsey’s biographers.

It is about the controversial research of Alfred Kinsey, an American sexologist who studied human sexuality in the 1940s and 1950s. The documentary reveals that some of his data was based on the sexual abuse of children by pedophiles.

If you would rather watch the larger documentary, one YouTube file is HERE

The Kinsey Syndrome (December, 2009)

2 hours and 45 minutes – This is the final upload I worked long and hard at for a post on Kinsey. This documentary is by far too long, but if you have the time, encyclopedic in its coverage. It was released in December of 2009.

IMDB SUMMARY: Working secretly in his attic, Dr. Kinsey was one of America’s original pornographers. His influence inspired Hugh Hefner to launch Playboy Magazine – the “soft” approach to porn – which in time would escalate the widespread use of pornography through magazines, cable TV and the Internet. In 2006 the California Child Molestation and Sexual Abuse Attorneys reported that: “The number of victims of childhood sexual abuse and molestation grows each year. This horrific crime is directly tied to the growth of pornography on the Internet.”


The Kinsey Sydrome shows how “The Kinsey Reports” have been used to change the laws concerning sex crimes in America, resulting in the minimal sentences so often given to rapists and pedophiles. Further explained is how the Kinsey data laid the foundation for sex education – training teachers, psychologists and even Catholic priests in human sexuality. What has been the consequence? And what was Kinsey’s research really based upon?

Working secretly in his attic, Dr. Kinsey was one of America’s original pornographers. His influence inspired Hugh Hefner to launch Playboy Magazine – the “soft” approach to porn – which in time would escalate the widespread use of pornography through magazines, cable TV and the Internet. In 2006 the California Child Molestation & Sexual Abuse Attorneys reported that: “The number of victims of childhood sexual abuse and molestation grows each year. This horrific crime is directly tied to the growth of pornography on the Internet.” Perhaps most disturbing, Alfred Kinsey has been accused of training pedophiles to work with stopwatches and record the responses of children being raped – all in the name of “science”. Among his workers was a Nazi pedophile whose relationship to Kinsey was exposed in a German court. The information from these crimes was then recorded in “Table 34” of Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. How can lawmakers use such a document to define the moral parameters of our society?

Why has the truth about Kinsey been suppressed for so long? And what can Americans do to make a difference?


The Kinsey Syndrome is a powerful documentary that unfolds the life and influence of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, considered to be the father of the sexual revolution. But did Kinsey liberate America from its prudish view of sex? Or help to unleash the horrors of our present society? This documentary shows how The Kinsey Reports of the 1940’s and 50’s have been used through the 20th and 21st century to change laws concerning sex crimes in America, removing protection from America’s women and children. Further explained is that the Kinsey data laid the foundation for sex education — training teachers, psychologists and even Catholic priests in human sexuality. What has been the consequence for society? And what was Kinsey’s research really based upon? Learn the answers to these and other questions in what MOVIEGUIDE called one of the most important productions of the 21st century.


The Bible tells us to expose the fruitless works of darkness. The documentary THE KINSEY SYNDROME does just that in painstaking detail. Each chapter of this video documentary addresses a different aspect of the work of the pseudo-scientist Alfred Kinsey whose fraudulent data laid the cancerous foundation for sex education, perversion, pedophilia, pornography, and the corruption of our culture. It shows how Kinsey trained pedophiles to work with stop watches to record the responses of children being raped in the name of science. One of the pedophiles was a Nazi in Germany whose relationship to Kinsey was exposed in a German court. This documentary shows how the government attempted to investigate Kinsey and his fallacious research and was thwarted by big foundations and other friends of pornography and sexual corruption. It is incredibly well researched, and it builds its case so carefully that it will change even the most hardened heart and mind and should be seen by every teacher, professor, academic, judge, senator and anyone else in authority. Someone should donate this documentary to every teacher, every judge, every member of congress, and all the officials in government. It is one of the most important productions of the 21st century. It is not for the squeamish, faint of heart or young children, but it is must viewing for every culture warrior, every parent and everyone who is concerned by the direction our society is going. — Dr. Ted Baehr, MOVIEGUIDE


The story of a mom whose son was healed from all allergies and asthma after consuming raw milk, and real food from farms. It depicts people all over the country who formed food co-ops and private clubs to get these foods, and how they were raided by state and local governments. Farmageddon tells the story of family farms that were providing healthy foods to their communities and were forced to stop by agents of misguided government bureaucracies.

Beyond Impossible | Documentary

Beyond Impossible exposes the corruption of the fake meat industry and how it ties in with the sinister plans of a global elite. Health expert Vinnie Tortorich asks the intriguing question: What do Harvard University, internet Vegans and the World Economic Forum all have in common?

A religious desire for the world to go Vegan.

But why? Is it an effort to stop global warming? Is it an earnest attempt at making everyone healthier? Is it a desperate plea to end animal cruelty? The answers may surprise you. Beyond Impossible reveals an uncomfortable truth about a world where peoples good intentions are being taken advantage of by everyone from Vegan doctors to global elites hell bent on instituting planetary policies that remove all personal choices from the kitchen and beyond.

To name a few, the characters involved include a Harvard doctor who wants to tax consumers into the healthy choice, a fake meat inventor who has a fascination with snapping cows out of existence, a vegan leader who bares a strong resemblance to Jesus Christ and a German engineer and economist who dreams of starting task forces to realize his dreams of a global reset.

Joined by experts that include doctors, journalists and even former vegans, Vinnie Tortorich maintains that while we still have the power of free will, it’s only a matter of time before it’s too late.

Celsius 41.11

(This was originally posted Jan 21, 2013 and the documentary was on my old [defunct] MRCTV account)

FULL MOVIE, one of my favorite Michael Moore responses from back in the day (2004).

(I cry every time I watch the beginning of this, the opener is here: https://tinyurl.com/yrhk6y84) This footage is a great example of how Democrats are joined at the hip with radicals. Again, this is one of my favorite documentaries, and while I doubt any of these have sold in years, get one, you won’t be disappointed (AMAZON). Citizens United Political Victory Fund’s (“CUPVF”)

This December 2004 comment from Amazon is a great intro to the video:

  • The vicious 2004 Presidential election is evidence of how deeply divided our nation is. The divide goes far deeper than Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative. The divide goes deep into the hearts of all Americans. For over a generation now, our schools have taught that right and wrong is determined by each individual, that you should not let anyone tell you what is right or wrong for you. This has had a disastrous impact on our national soul. Because of this we have people like Michael Moore making films with no concern for truth or accuracy. In Mr. Moore’s eyes, the truth is not important. He truly hates America and he hates George Bush because Pres. Bush has the audacity to love our nation and to believe that all people on Earth should have a chance to be free. Celsius 411 and FahrenHYPE 9/11 were made as an answer to Mr. Moore, and to put forth the real story, if anyone really cares to seek out the truth. In the Bible, when life was good for God’s chosen people, they valued their possessions more than God and turned away from Him. The Bible says then “every man did what was right in his own eyes”. Which is to say they determined their own morality instead of following God’s law. This resulted in God’s punishment and great sorrow, which would then bring them back to the Lord, which then led to His blessings and then the cycle started again. Half of Americans still believe and look to God for guidance. In the other half, every man is doing what is right in his own eyes. This my fellow citizens is the root of our divide. As the numbers in the first group dwindle, the fabric of our society is further torn. How long until

Is Alien Life Even A Possibility?



A young co-worker and another coworking compatriot asked if I thought there was life elsewhere in the universe. Being me, I just cannot say no, so I explained the idea in conversational form (while getting stuff ready for my run) the following: “Scientific and Anecdotal Evidence for the Beginning of the Universe.”

  • Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1915;
  • Around the same time evidence of an expanding universe was being presented to the American Astronomical Society by Vesto Slipher;
  • In the 1920s using Einstein’s theory, a Russian mathematician (Alexander Friedman) and the Belgium astronomer (George Lemaitre)  predicted the universe was expanding;
  • In 1929, Hubble discovered evidence confirming earlier work on the Red-Light shift showing that galaxies are moving away from us;
  • In the 1940’s, George Gamow predicted a particular temperature to the universe if the Big Bang happened;
  • In 1965, two scientists (Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson) discovered the universe’s background radiation — and it was only about 3.7 degrees above absolute zero.

After explaining quickly the ideas therein, and noting that the Greeks, Sumerians, Hindus, Buddhists, Janists, etc-etc, in fact, all the world religions and various worldviews — save theism — posit some sort of eternal nature.

For those that have never heard of something they express (often illogically and in parts)

  • A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our well being. — James W. Sire, Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 122.
  • The German word is Weltanschauung, meaning a ‘world and life view,’ or ‘a paradigm.’ It is a framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life. A worldview makes a world of difference in one’s view of God, origins, evil, human nature, values, and destiny” — Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999], 785-786.
  • A worldview consists of a series of assumptions/presuppositions that a person holds about reality. A worldview, consciously or subconsciously, affects the way a person evaluates every aspect of reality. Every person adheres to some sort of worldview, although one person may not be as consciously aware of it as another person. These presuppositions affect the thinking of every person in the world. It logically follows that the way a person thinks affects what a person does. — Biblical Archaeology 
  • People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.  By “presuppositions” we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world.  Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists.  People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world.  Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions. “As a man thinketh, so he is,” is really profound.  An individual is not just the product of the forces around him.  He has a mind, an inner world.  Then, having thought, a person can bring forth actions into the external world and thus influence it.  People are apt to look at the outer theater of action, forgetting the actor who “lives in the mind” and who therefore is the true actor in the external world.  The inner thought world determines the outward action.  Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles.  But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what worldview is true.  When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, “not many men are in the room” — that is, although worldviews have many variations, there are not many basic worldviews or presuppositions. — Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1976), 19-20.

(See more here: “Worldviews 101 ~ What is a Worldview?“)


The only religious text that posits creation ex nihilo [creation from nothing] confirming the latest discoveries of science from Einstein’s theory of relativity to now is the Hebraic Bible [specifically, Genesis — the Bible]. as part of this discussion I noted quickly the just over 10,000 religions in the world fall into just 7-categories/worldviews at most — and stressed again that only theism predicting modern scientific discovery


  • “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

— Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992), 107 | [Additional bio info] Dr. Jastrow ( 1925–2008) became the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and served as its director until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently he was a professor of Geophysics at Columbia University. Jastrow became the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. In 1981 Jastrow left NASA to join the faculty of Dartmouth College as professor of Earth Sciences. He left Dartmouth in 1992 to take up duties as director and chairman of the Mount Wilson Institute, managing the Mount Wilson Observatory in California. Dr. Jastrow was an agnostic, not a Christian.


and along with philosophy, history, and science [noted in the convo], I do not believe in alien life. In fact, I am informed of other lifeforms, angels. 

The young lady involved in the conversation after I noted “I could have just said ‘no’ to the question” thanked me for the thorough response. Which was very kind of her. I then noted that I wish many other people in my sub-group, Christians, could also respond in similar fashion… the quote I always have in mind about this I texted to the young man while in bumper-to-bumper traffic on my way to deliver product:


After reading many books on extraterrestrial encounters, ghosts, spirit mediums, and demons, I do believe there is interdimensional life. There is more evidence for that, and less blind faith that is required to say “life is possible somewhere” in the material universe. BTW, one of my favorite quotes (talking about faith vs informed faith):

  • “I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”

Morimer J. Adler, [chapter titled] “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in, Kelly James Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 207. | [Additional bio info] Dr. Adler (1902-2001) was Chairman and Cofounder with Max Weismann of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas and Editor in Chief of its journal Philosophy is Everybody’s Business, co-founder and director of the Institute for Philosophical Research, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, Editor in Chief of the Great Books of the Western World and The Syntopicon: An Index to the Great Ideas, Editor of The Great Ideas Today (all published by Encyclopedia Britannica), Co-Founder and Honorary Trustee of The Aspen Institute, past Instructor at Columbia University, Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago (1930-52).

In other words, my worldview supported by evidence, negates such beliefs.

All this being said, I sometimes feel like the guy explaining stuff in this funny meme:

At the end of this post I will include the entire “Privileged Planet” documentary… it will expand the thinking of just how improbable another planet exists that can support life. As well as other media.


(Originally posted July of 2018)

Excellent two part video series by God and Science:

– the author of these videos id Richard Deem

2nd Video Will Follow In A Bit….


Here are three articles about an OXFORD study using Drake’s Equation:

Drake’s work can be expressed thus: N = R ∗ fp ∗ ne∗ fl ∗ fi ∗ fc ∗ L

  • R* = How frequently are suns born whose light could conceivably sustain intelligent life?
  • fp = What fraction of those stars have planets?
  • ne = How many of those planets, per solar system, have environments suitable for life?
  • fl = What fraction of those planets actually host life?
  • fi = What fraction of those life-bearing planets have intelligent life?
  • fc = What fraction of those intelligent civilizations broadcast detectable signals into space?
  • L = How long do those civilizations broadcast detectable signals into space?



Here is the first article via Michael Guillen at FOX NEWS:

According to a team of researchers at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, it’s because we’ve been using the wrong factors in the Drake Equation. We – including usually hard-nosed scientists – want so badly for there to be LGM, we’ve been grossly overestimating the values of Drake’s factors, resulting in a flagrant overestimation of the number of civilizations that should exist out there.

When the Oxford folks assign realistic numerical values to the seven factors – based on an honest evaluation of the uncertainties in our very best chemical, biological, physical, and astronomical knowledge – Frank’s famous equation predicts a much, much, much smaller number than 1,000 – 100,000,000 intelligent civilizations per galaxy. The median number plummets to something as low as 0.00000000000000000000000000000000008 (that’s an eight preceded by thirty-four zeroes).

In plain English, explain the authors in a paper submitted to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, “we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe.” If any LGM do exist out there somewhere, the researchers conclude, it is somewhere over the rainbow, so to speak – “quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.”

So, next time you look up at the night sky and say to yourself, “There has to be someone out there!” think again. Even though it sounds like a possibility more fantastic than the Tooth Fairy, science itself is presently telling us we are very likely it – the only intelligent creatures inhabiting this immense and incredible universe.

The other is from COSMOS:

….Sandberg, Drexler and Ord use a different approach in their modelling, incorporating current scientific uncertainties that produce values for different parts of the equation ranging over tens and hundreds of orders of magnitude. Some of these concern critical questions regarding the emergence of life from non-living material – a process known as abiogenesis – and the subsequent likelihoods of early RNA-like life evolving into more adaptive DNA-like life.

Then there is the essential matter of that primitive DNA-like life undergoing the sort of evolutionary symbiotic development that occurred on Earth, when a relationship between two different types of simple organisms resulted in the complex “eukaryotic” cells that constitute every species on the planet more complicated than bacteria.

The results are depressing enough to send a thousand science-fiction writers into catatonic shock. The Fermi Paradox, they find, dissolves.

“When we take account of realistic uncertainty, replacing point estimates by probability distributions that reflect current scientific understanding, we find no reason to be highly confident that the galaxy (or observable universe) contains other civilizations,” they conclude.

“When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe.

“‘Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable.”

And the NEW YORK POST wrote on the OXFORD study as well:

…..Researchers at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute came to the conclusion that humans are alone in the universe while examining the so-called “Fermi Paradox” — which ponders why scientists believe in extraterrestrials despite having zero proof.

“We find a substantial probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it,” researchers say in the report, published in the online journal Arxiv.org earlier this month.

There’s likely no intelligent life outside of Earth — so there’s no need to waste time theorizing about humanity’s relationship with aliens, notes the paper, dubbed “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox.”

The paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, questions how there could be “a high probability” of extraterrestrial life when there’s no solid proof.

“Where is everyone?” Fermi asked in the 1950s while pondering the possibility of interstellar travel.

Past scientific theories have said alien civilizations may be living in our galaxy based on seven factors — including the position of star formations and how long creatures are able to survive.

But Oxford researchers Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler and Toby Ord say the simplest solution is likely the truth: There’s no one else out there……

So What Of Alien Abductions?

So, after years of reading books and studying eyewitness encounters and watching TV specials on spirit mediums, alien abductions, past lives, the occult, new age, automatic writing, altered states of consciousness, and hauntings (and more)… the messages and encounters in all these different mediums have a common thread. And since my worldview is informed by the Judeo-Christian God and Scripture… I can come to only one conclusion…. which follows:

Here is that promised 2nd video:

(This post is tied to a similar discussion of Ghost)

Please keep in mind this documentary was made in the 80’s. It has spooky music and is very much dated… the “disclaimer” below it applies as well. All that said, there are some great points made that are still relevant, and most importantly, true.

Take note I do not endorse everything noted in this documentary or the articles, but the similarity between alien encounters, spiritism (like mediums), ghosts, the occult, and the like, is the important issue here ~ NOT “government conspiracies” or the like.

While this documentary is dated, the DVD for purchase (I did edit it a bit), and HERE.

Two decent articles on the issue of UFOs and the Christian worldview, are as follows:

And the best books on the subject are by William Alnor!

Another great book, and a quick read, is Ron Rhodes book,

A note from my Facebook about this and my other post:

I posted two older documentaries (they are from the 80’s, so expect the pat narrator and eerie music) and some links of my own thoughts on the matter.

These two posts give a theistic-Christian interpretation to UFOs, ghosts, spirit mediums, and the like. You can break the world’s 10,000 religious beliefs down to a handful of worldviews and each worldview has a distinct interpretation of the evidence. So if you are a Christian, you cannot believe a ghost is a departed love one or a soul lost and wandering the earth (Hebrews 9:27[note]).

So what is the explanation for these apparent metaphysical encounters?

Well, you will have to see and watch for yourself:

➤ Is Alien Life A Possibility? (This post)
Spiritism and Ghosts ~ The Christian View

[Note] Mind you, it seems clear that before their real conversion to the idea of who Jesus was (God Almighty), the Disciple also believed in ghosts (https://carm.org/did-the-disciples-of-Jesus-believe-in-ghosts).

So I am not saying the person who does believe in these things are retarded or dumb. All I am saying is in the Christian worldview these interpretations do not fit the evidence. I would challenge the believer to mature in their understanding of what their view says and how believing in ghosts being departed people, ETs that posses people, etc,…

…are borrowing from other worldviews and cutting-n-tapping it into the worldview of Christianity.

Do You Believe in Ghosts? The Christian View of the Paranormal

Related Bibliography


  • Testing the Spirits, by Elizebeth L. Hillstrom
  • The Culting of America, by Ron Rhodes (especially chapter 12)
  • Alien Obsession: What Lies Behind Abductions, Sightings, and the Attraction to the Paranormal, by Ron Rhodes
  • Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religioons and the Occult, by Mather and Nichols
  • Occult Invasion: The Subtle Seduction of the World & the Church, by Dave Hunt
  • Biblical Demonology: A Study of Spiritual Forces at Work Today, by Merrill F. Unger
  • Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, by Ankerberg and Weldon
  • The Facts on the New Age Movement, Ankerberg and Weldon
  • Occult ABC, by Kurt Koch
  • Christian Counseling & Occultism, by Kurt Koch
  • Occult Bondage and Deliverance, by Kurt Koch
  • Demonology, Past & Present, by Kurt Koch
  • Handbook of Today’s Religions, by McDowell and Stewart
  • The Occult Shock and Psychic Forces, Wilson and Weldon
  • Cults: And the Occult, by Edmond Gruss
  • The Ouija Board: A Doorway to the Occult, by Edmund Gruss
  • Ouija: The Most Dangerous Game, by Stoker Hunt
  • The Beautiful Side of Evil, by Johanna Michaelsen
  • The Occult Roots of Nazism, by Nicholas Goodrick
  • Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca, by Craig Hawkins
  • UFO’s and the Alien Agenda: Uncovering the Mystery Behind UFO’s and the Paranormal, by Bob Larson
  • Encounters with UFO’s, by Weldon and Levitt
  • UFOs in the New Age: Extraterrestrial Messages & the Truth of Scripture, by William Alnor
  • UFO Cults & the New Millennium, by William Alnor
  • Alien Encounters: The Secret Behind the UFO Phenomenon, by Missler and Eastman
  • The New Age Cult, by Walter Martin
  • Beware! Deception & Delusion in the Church, by Bill Rudge

Non Christian

  • Communion: A True Story: Encounters with the Unknown, by Whitley Strieber
  • The Unexplained, by Allen Spraggett
  • Mediums, Mystics and the Occult, by Milbourne Christopher
  • Ghosts Among Us: True Stories of Spirit Encounters, by Leslie Rule
  • Possessed: The True Story of an Exorcism, by Thomas B. Allen
  • Thirty Years Among the Dead: Historic Studies in Spiritualism; A Psychiatrist’s Investigation of Spirit Mediums and Psychic Possession in his Patients, by Carl August Wickland
  • Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Book 1, by Neale Donald Walsch
  • A Course in Miracles, by Helen Schucman
  • The Urantia Book: Revealing the Mysteries of God, the Universe, World History, Jesus, and Ourselves, “Multiple” authors


Video Description

For centuries scientists and philosophers have marveled at an eerie coincidence. Mathematics, a creation of human reason, can predict the nature of the universe, a fact physicist Eugene Wigner referred to as the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences.” In the last three decades astronomers and cosmologists have noticed another, seemingly unrelated, mystery. Contrary to all expectations, the laws of physics seem precisely “fine-tuned” for the existence of complex life.

Could these two wonders actually be isolated pieces of a wider pattern? Both are prerequisites for science, yet what about the process of scientific discovery itself? What are its necessary conditions? Why is it even possible? Read any book on the history of science, and you’ll learn about magnificent tales of human ingenuity, persistence, and dumb luck. But that’s only part of the story, and not even the most important part. Our location is much more critical to science than it is to real estate. For some reason our Earthly location is extraordinarily well suited to allow us to peer into the heavens and discover its secrets.

Elsewhere, you might learn that Earth and its local environment provide a delicate, and probably exceedingly rare, cradle for complex life. But there’s another, even more startling, fact, described in The Privileged Planet: those same rare conditions that produce a habitable planet-that allow for the existence of complex observers like ourselves-also provide the best overall place for observing. What does this mean? At the least, it turns our view of the universe inside out. The universe is not “pointless” (Steven Weinberg), Earth merely “a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark,” (Carl Sagan) and human existence “just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents” (Steven Weinberg). On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for discovery.


This is an old podcast of Dr. Norman Geisler discussing ex-atheist Antony Flew’s book that detailed his leaving atheism. Here is a “Flewism”

  • “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” After chewing on his scientific worldview for more than five decades, Flew concluded, “A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” Previously, in his central work, The Presumption of Atheism (1976), Flew argued that the “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.” However, at the age of 81, Flew shocked the world when he renounced his atheism because “the argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.” (See my DNA post: RNA/DNA = Information | Or, What “IS” Information)

Flew’s God was: immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, whole [one, or indivisible, perfectly good and necessary exists].

I call Dr. Flew the long-time “Pope of atheism.” He was the “go-to” guy… until his move to deism in 2004. He was a British philosopher belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, he is notable for his works on the philosophy of religion. Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He has also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defense to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, and later wrote the book There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with contributions from Roy Abraham Varghese. Dr. Flew’s God sounded a lot like the theistic God apologist Dr. William Lane Craig describes:

What properties must such a cause of the universe possess? By the very nature of the case, the cause of space and time must transcend space and time and therefore exist timelessly and nonspatially (at least without the universe). This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since anything that is timeless must also be unchanging, and anything that is changeless must be nonphysical and immaterial (since material things are constantly changing at the molecular and atomic levels). Such an entity must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any prior causal conditions, since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Ockham’s razor—the principle which states that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity—will shave away any other causes, since only one cause is required to explain the effect. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent first cause is plausibly personal. Two reasons can be given for this conclusion. First, the personhood of the first cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality. The only entities which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, like numbers. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. The number 7, for example, can’t cause anything. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an unembodied mind.

Second, this same conclusion is implied by the origin of an effect with a beginning from a beginningless cause. We’ve concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature of the case, that cause cannot have either a beginning of its existence or any prior cause. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect also eternal? How can the cause exist without the effect?

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but freely create the world in time. By exercising his causal power, he brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist? So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

We may therefore conclude that a personal Creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful.

William Lane Craig and Chad Meister, God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 16-17.

Here is another video explaining the impossibility of life even in the time allotted by evolution (video description to follow):

This is a combining of two videos into one to strengthen the points made in them… as well as to preserve them for future use.

  • FIRST VIDEO [split in two]: “Stephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins’s ‘Mount Improbable’ Illustration” (YouTube)
  • SECOND VIDEO [tucked between the above]: “Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance” (YouTube)

Other posts related to this on my site:

  • Not Enough Evolutionary Time For Simple Life (RPT)
  • RNA/DNA < Information | Or, What “IS” Information (RPT)
  • The Two Books of Faith – Nature and Revelatory (50+ Evidences) (RPT)


Investigative Documentary: Who’s Stealing America? (2020 Election)

  • Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
  • 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST)
  • What Would It Take to Convince You The Election Was Rigged? (STREAM)
  • Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
  • EXCLUSIVE: Peter Navarro Expands Election Fraud Memo, Number Of Illegal Ballots Dwarf Biden Victory Margin By Over Two (Peter Navarro released an exclusive update to his “Immaculate Deception” – NATIONAL PULSE)
  • A Simple Test for the extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. (Revised December 21, 2020) (SCRIBD)

This is via EPOCH TIMES and NTD.


NATIONAL FILE has a recent story about Georgia’s move towards sanity:

A report coming out of the Georgia State Senate concludes that illegal activity took place on Nov. 3 contrary to what Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger insists

A new report from the Georgia State Senate’s Election Law Study Subcommittee found evidence of illegal activity executed by election workers at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta on November 3 and 4, 2020.

The Georgia Election Law Study Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Georgia State Senate Judiciary Committee. Subcommittee Chairman, William Ligon (R), said the draft report has not been formally approved by either the subcommittee or the Judicial Committee.

“The events at the State Farm Arena are particularly disturbing because they demonstrated intent on the part of election workers to exclude the public from viewing the counting of ballots, an intentional disregard for the law. The number of votes that could have been counted in that length of time was sufficient to change the results of the presidential election and the senatorial contests,” the report reads.

“Furthermore, there appears to be coordinated illegal activities by election workers themselves who purposely placed fraudulent ballots into the final election totals.”


The subcommittee’s report acknowledged that a plethora of witnesses and experts testified about irregularities and fraud allegations during a public hearing earlier this month.

In summary, the legislators on the subcommittee wrote, the General Election “was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy.”


JUST THE NEWS as well has a promising move coming from Arizona:

The Republican party of Arizona announced on Monday that the state’s GOP electors will intervene in the case between Maricopa County and the Arizona state legislature over access to the county’s voting machines.

Kelli Ward, the chairwoman of the Arizona GOP, announced on Monday that the Maricopa County board of supervisors is refusing to comply with a legislative subpoena from the State Senate Judiciary Committee that requires the board to conduct an audit of the county’s Dominion Voting Systems machines to determine the legitimacy of the outcome of last month’s presidential election.

Instead of complying, the board of supervisors is suing the senate committee to avoid handing over the subpoenaed materials and machinery. The board, in its suit, argues that they cannot conduct a forensic audit of the voting machines because they are entangled in litigation (of their own making). 

The board also argues that an audit would jeopardize the secrecy of the ballots from electors. Ward however, said, “There is nothing that stops them from doing the audit.”

The Arizona Republicans are now moving to intervene in the case in an effort to ensure the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems machines takes place. 

“We are entering into this case,” said Ward. Lawyers for Maricopa County have, according to Ward, accused the Senate Judiciary Committee “of just wanting to get this data so that they can give it to us (the Arizona GOP).”

The purpose of the legal intervention from the Arizona Republicans is to ensure that the State Senate Judiciary Committee’s legislative subpoena is followed by the Maricopa County board. “We are doing everything possible to stop the steal, to maintain election integrity, and to force honesty into this process,” said Ward……


AND, out of Wisconsin comes news about an upper court win for Trump — DAVID HARRIS JR.

President Trump finally won one in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Of course, the media is concentrating on the case he lost. In that case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to throw out 221,000 votes.

A victory would have won the state for Trump who is only behind by a little over 20,000 votes.

According to far-left Washington Post:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.

The ruling came after the court held arguments Saturday, the same day a federal judge dismissed another Trump lawsuit seeking to overturn his loss in the state. Trump appealed that ruling.

Trump sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic counties. He wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.

But it is the second ruling that could give Wisconsin to Trump provided the Democrats allow the Republicans to see the ballots and challenge them. These 215,000 ballots are from people who are allegedly “indefinitely confined.”….

“Uncle Tom” – A Must See Documentary

UNCLE TOM is the best political documentary I have seen since INDOCTRINATE U… and yes, I watched No Safe Spaces. That was largely a dud in my mind. Why? It really didn’t introduce me to others to allow for the growth ideas and viewpoints or perspectives to make a stronger conservative case. Indoctrinate U introduced me to Carol Swain, John McWhorter, and others. (My 2-cents)

Here Larry Elder covers some of the reviews of the film:

The Muslim Brotherhood Exposed (Ami Horowitz)

(MOONBATTERY hat-tip) Ami Horowitz investigated the mother of many Islamic terror groups, the umbrella group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, and unsurprisingly found that it is devoted to the imposition of a global caliphate. This sinister organization has already established a secure beachhead in the USA.

PBS Documentary About Clinton (#FakeNews)

In a great example of how the media guides it’s listeners down a path full of narratives they [said media] wish were true… we find in a touted “honest” Clinton documentary many lies and missteps (Clinton | American Experience). Larry Elder is in his element here as he excoriates the depths of this false narrative. His article is a must read for those interested in this. Near the back-half of the audio Larry offers other media silence on issues surrounding Democrats. They [Democrats] apparently have a no fly zone in regard to honest reporting.